Digoenes, a lot of this discussion about interpretation of the constitution is clouding the issue, I think. In this post (replying to some examples given by JohnnieEnigma, you have clearly demonstrated why 1) some on the right do not agree with the ACLU, and 2) why you can’t understand their objections.
First, JohnnieEnigma gives the example of parental notification of abortions. Here, you claim that the ACLU is defending the rights of the individual. Many on the right believe that the right of a parent to protect and care for their children outweighs a minor’s right to privacy.
Second, JohnnieEnigma gives the example of school choice. You claim that it’s a scam designed to funnel taxpayer money to funding religious indoctrination. For many who favor school choice, the main concern is quality of education, and not religious indoctrination. But even if the goal IS religious education, many on the right would say that it’s their right to give their child the education they want, and not the one the government wants them to have.
Third, JohnnieEnigma gives the example of parental roles in educating children. You say you don’t know what he means, but you’re sure it’s bullshit. I think what he’s probably getting at is the right of parents to be involved in their children’s educations, and take over that education in the form of homeschooling if they don’t like what’s going on in the public schools. You must know that people on the right are in favor of this kind of parental involvement, that they often disagree with some of the things that are taught in public schools, and that they believe it’s their right to teach their children as they see fit, without government interference.
So, I think your question is really not about “what the righties have against the ACLU?” You must have a pretty clear understanding of what goals of the ACLU they might disagree with. For you to claim that these reasons are not in any way justified is really just another way of saying that you can’t possibly understand why everyone doesn’t agree with YOU…all you have given in these examples is the leftie party line. It would be like me asking what lefties have against an organization that supports the opposite of what the ACLU supports…say, parental notification, school choice, and homeschooling. This hypothetical organization may have as its mission statement the same goals as the ACLU…defense of liberty. It’s all in the interpretation of what that means. Do you really think there’s no possible defense for not interpreting it the same way you do?
I don’t see how any ACLU action in federal court either:
(1) Empowers the federal government, or
(2) Takes away anyone’s rights
Any victory by the ACLU in court limits both federal and state government power and empowers individuals against the federal and state governments.
Furthermore, such actions do nothing to limit state governments’ power to supplement limitations on government power at the federal level with more limitations on government power at the state level.
But the ACLU is not trying to prevent parents from sending their kids to whatever schools they want, it only opposes using taxpayer money to pay for religious education. That’s not an intrusion on civil liberties. Parents do not have a right to have taxpayers fund their kids religious educations and the government is not supposed to use taxpayer money to endorse religion. I send my own daughter to a Catholic school (and the others will follow when they’re old enough), but my rights are not being infringed if my neighbors are not forced to pay for it. The ACLU is actually protecting their rights.
Also, I think it’s silly to suggest that the government “wants” kids to get non-religious educations or cares at all. The government (in theory) offers free education to those who want or need it, and the state is Constitutionally mandated to refrain from endorsing any religious opinions as part of that education (including any opinion that God does not exist), but it’s not accurate to say that the government “wants” kids to receive one kind of education over another.
I’m not aware of the ACLU opposing homeschooling. Do you have a cite for that? My guess was that it was a reference to parents not wanting evolution taught in schools, or perhaps objections to certain kinds of sex education (like the “heather Has Two Mommies” kind of thing). I’d have to see a specific example of how the ACLU is involved with trying to prevent parental involvement with education, though.
Could you give an example of the ACLU interfering with this perceived right?
Incidentally, do you think that this right is absolute? Do parents have a right teach their kids that 2+2=6 or that Bob Dylan discovered America?
I didn’t mean to be unclear about the point of my post, but I think I was. The point wasn’t to debate each argument with you, but instead to offer the opinion that I think you are being a little disingenuous when you say that you don’t get what righties have against the ACLU.
You are probably right that the ACLU doesn’t oppose homeschooling…I actually don’t know or care that much about the ACLU, so I wasn’t trying to defend either side, exactly. I would say that, forgetting the homeschooling example, many righties believe that they should have more control over what is taught in their local schools, and that the feds shouldn’t be able to decide what the curriculum ought to be.
The examples JohnnieEnigma gave, and your replies just struck me as some examples of how the idea of personal freedom may be interpreted differently by a rightie vs. a leftie. . That was the point I was trying to make, not to necessarily take a side on which interpretation I think is “correct.”
No, he’s just telling you that the right of judicial review doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t give the Supreme Court the right to treat the Constitution like a deck of tarot cards.
I don’t have any deep, abiding hatred for the ACLU.
But I do have a couple of minor, irritating winces associated with them. Overall, I’d say they do as much good as they do mischief – especially when you realize that the ACLU can pass no laws, levy no fines, and jail no people. What they do is ask a court to agree with their view of how the country should be run in some aspect.
If and when they find a judge sympathetic to the idea that a valid role of the judiciary is to enact sweeping social change, we might imagine that we’d have big problems.
Here are some little nitpicks about the ACLU:
[ul]
[li]They have a consistent method of interpreting the Bill of Rights – they tend to read it openly, expansively, and broadly, with the benefit of every inference being given to the approach which yields the most individual freedom … EXCEPT when the issue is the Second Amendment. There, they have been mostly silent. It seems a bit dishonest to me, but they may well conclude that they need to choose their battles and since there is an entire, well-funded organization out there JUST dedicated to the Second, they need not bother. Still…[/li][li]As hinted above – they have chosen to ignore the “personal, individual freedom” mantra when the issue was abortion protestors[/li][li]The DC government’s voluntary house search program. “Safe Homes” targets those who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Residents can call police, set up appointments for officers to visit and sign a consent-to-search form. Any guns or drugs found during such a search will be confiscated with immunity for any charges related to them. But the ACLU is distributing signs that say, “No consent to search our home! This house protected by the United States Constitution.” Why? The Constitution isn’t involved in voluntary searches. The entire process starts with the residents calling police; why would the ACLU seek to discourage it?[/li][/ul]
How many divisions of armored infantry can the ACLU field?
THe point being… the only thing they have the power to do is go into court and ask a judge to agree with them. If their “meddling” has no merit, why would a judge agree? And if it does… then shouldn’t the judge agree?
The problem, if there is one, lies with judges who do not approach their job with an appropriate understanding of the role of the judiciary. Blaming the ACLU for such judges is like blaming my kid for asking for Oreos for breakfast when I’m the one that gives him the cookies.
Alas, most of the anti-ACLU folks here have just used their image of the group as Atheistical Commmie as a springboard to discuss All That Has Gone Wrong In This Godless Country. They haven’t focused on many specific cases.
Let’s look at what the harpies at Concerned Women for America have to say about the ACLU. No, I’m not the one to make sense of all this.
But–thanks for reminding me to re-up with the ACLU!
We prsume You teach your kids restraint and judgment so that when older they can make the appropriate wholesome decision regarding their breakfast dietary practices. And then you think the ACLU are like kids wanting Oreos for breakfast OK we are in agreement The ACLU should exercise restraint.
No, no more so than my kid should stop asking for cookies.
His role as a first-grader is to push boundries, to expand his areas of control. My role as Papito is to set reasonable boundary limits.
Similarly, the ACLU’s role is to push one of side of the see-saw down as hard as they can. It’s for the forces on the other side of the see-saw to provide opposition.
The ACLU is an advocate for a particular set of positions. They have every right to agitate effectively for the adoption of those principles. They are not elected officials – they are private actors. They can do as they please. And under our system of self-governance, they are as free as any other set of private actors to work for governmental change.
[li]The DC government’s voluntary house search program. “Safe Homes” targets those who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Residents can call police, set up appointments for officers to visit and sign a consent-to-search form. Any guns or drugs found during such a search will be confiscated with immunity for any charges related to them. But the ACLU is distributing signs that say, “No consent to search our home! This house protected by the United States Constitution.” Why? The Constitution isn’t involved in voluntary searches. The entire process starts with the residents calling police; why would the ACLU seek to discourage it?[/li][/QUOTE]
They probably want to remind people that they never have to give their consent to a search without a warrant. Believe it or not, a lot of people will say “yes” when a cop asks to search their house because they feel they have to. I see nothing wrong with someone putting a sign on their house that they are proud of their 4th amendment rights.
But this program doesn’t involve cops asking to search houses. So it’s unclear to me why the ACLU would, in connection with this program, encourage people to say they are proud of their Fourth Amendment rights, when the people could achieve the same result by not calling the police and asking them to search the house in the first place.
They are probably worried about a culture of complicity being created. If all your neighbors have their houses voluntarily searched, maybe you’ll feel a lot more pressure to say “yes” if the cops knock on your door. The ACLU signs are a way of pushing back against that.